Point, counter-point

  • Thread starter Thread starter RPRPsych
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RPRPsych

Guest
An interesting little debate in the Catholic blogosphere:

Ryan Williams at Aleteia declares “Sex is kind of like the nourishing food of marriage”:

aleteia.org/2016/08/12/sex-is-the-nourishing-food-of-marriage/

And Mary Pezzulo at Patheos Catholic puts the ixnay on it!

patheos.com/blogs/steelmagnificat/2016/08/no-sex-is-not-the-nourishing-food-of-marriage/

Your thoughts, fellow married couples? 🙂 (I tend to err towards the Pezzulo side of things, though I wish she and her supporters were a little more temperate in their forms of expression. ;))
 
I haven’t read Pezzulo’s piece yet, but I did read the other earlier in the week and to me it felt like putting the cart before the horse. (I think it’s a love language thing - my love “tank” gets filled up with other loving things which then inclines me more towards expressing that physically.)

Interestingly, I think my husband would agree with the first piece. I know you are a man, but I’ll admit as I read it I kept saying to myself, “Just like a man!” as if I were Miss Cornelia Bryant. :-o

I’ll have to read the other and see.
 
pensmama87 said:
I haven’t read Pezzulo’s piece yet, but I did read the other earlier in the week and to me it felt like putting the cart before the horse. (I think it’s a love language thing - my love “tank” gets filled up with other loving things which then inclines me more towards expressing that physically.)

Interestingly, I think my husband would agree with the first piece. I know you are a man, but I’ll admit as I read it I kept saying to myself, “Just like a man!” as if I were Miss Cornelia Bryant. :-o

I’ll have to read the other and see.
Click to expand...
+100 for that blast from the past. My wife and I are both big fans of Anne. 👍

And though I’m a man, I did feel something was “off” about that first piece. I think Williams had a good point, but got carried away and became a little too over-enthusiastic. We guys tend to get like that sometimes. 😊
 
Somebody has to say this:



“Jane, you ignorant slut.” 😃

Seriously, though, I would say sex is ONE of the nourishing foods of marriage… faith is first, though… then dependability, and communication.
 
putting on my WWII German helmet, parting the grasses with my hand

Ver-r-ry interesting!

I’m currently slogging my way through the 37-volume English translation of the Early Church Fathers. I’ve finished all nine volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and I’m about half-way thru the fourth volume of the Nicene Fathers (specifically, St. Augustine). The consensus in those centuries seems to have been “marriage is okay, but virginity is better.” Sexual intercourse was for procreation only; Augustine especially wrote repeatedly that even within marriage, using sexual intercourse to slake “lust” was a sin, albeit venial. Other writers urged married couples to live in “chastity,” a word that in our day means putting sex in its proper place (i.e., between marriage partners), but which taken in the context of that day could be taken to mean only complete abstinence, except for begetting children. I do not find the concept of the unitive dimension of marital sex mentioned at all in the writings of this era, and I would be curious to know when that term arose in the discussions of Catholic sexual morality.

My take on the subject is that on one hand, God made certain needful, beneficial things to be pleasure-giving, so that we humans would do them and prosper. For example, eating food is necessary, so God made it pleasurable. If eating were unpleasant or painful, as sometimes happens during illness or old age, people would avoid the consumption of food, to the detriment of their health. God made sex fun, because he wanted the human race to procreate itself, and because He apparently wanted husbands and wives to spend a lot of time face to face, and not just in the bedroom. Obviously, when the focus centers on the pleasure, then corruption develops (gluttony in the case of food, perversion in the case of sex). But does that mean that we should deny the pleasure when it is taken in its proper context, just because some people take it our of its context? Some of the same early church writers who wrote against sex for pleasure within marriage also wrote against cooking techniques that made food more pleasurable (seasonings, sauces, etc.). If eating seasoned foods is a sin, then we’re all going to hell!

As far as the two linked articles are concerned, I think perhaps that Ryan Williams got a little carried away with his descriptive language, and perhaps Mary Pezzulo was reacting to that. With me, this debate is more academic than practical, because my wife and I are both right around 70, and my wife has physical problems on top of her age. But I’m still not sure where the line should be drawn. Whom do we believe – the teachings that are currently extant after 2000 years of “doctrinal development,” or the teaching that were propounded by those who were much closer in time to the apostles? It is a puzzlement. But I certainly will not criticize those married couples who are frequently “enjoying” each other. It’s not my business.
 
Not only was the first article very good, the second one was disturbing.

Go without sex for a few days, or even a week. Then have sex. Instantly you feel closer, more affectionate, and more loved. You fight less. This is neurochemical response and we don’t even realize it’s happening. It’s a natural, subconcious thing.

The conventional wisdom of earning a sex life by being a “good spouse” is actually being rejected by a lot of modern marriage counselors in favor of making sex an integral part of building up a marriage - even if you don’t feel like it. Because it makes us just feel warmer towards our spouses, sex makes listening, talking, and compromising naturally easier.

I say all of this with one caveat: if one partner is selfish in bed, sex will only increase resentment and make the other person feel used. It has to be done for mutual enjoyment and climax.

Having a great sex life and making it a point to continue even in bad times doesn’t make the marriage “based on sex” or any other such nonsense. It doesn’t detract from the long conversations, the laugher, or any other good things about marriage. An antidepressant doesn’t make your problems or your sadness go away, it only helps you be a bit more chemically predisposed to being able to deal with them. In the same way, sex doesn’t fix anything, but it helps predispose the couple to being able to work together to solve problems.

And that’s why I’m a huge believer in the martial debt, even in bad times.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
snip

Having a great sex life and making it a point to continue even in bad times doesn’t make the marriage “based on sex” or any other such nonsense. It doesn’t detract from the long conversations, the laugher, or any other good things about marriage. An antidepressant doesn’t make your problems or your sadness go away, it only helps you be a bit more chemically predisposed to being able to deal with them. In the same way, sex doesn’t fix anything, but it helps predispose the couple to being able to work together to solve problems.

And that’s why I’m a huge believer in the martial debt, even in bad times.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better definition/description of the unitive dimension of the “marital embrace.” 👍
 
RPRPsych said:
+100 for that blast from the past. My wife and I are both big fans of Anne. 👍

And though I’m a man, I did feel something was “off” about that first piece. I think Williams had a good point, but got carried away and became a little too over-enthusiastic. We guys tend to get like that sometimes. 😊
Click to expand...
😃

Actually, I reread the first article again and I liked it more than I did the first time. I am inclined especially to agree with BEL’s summary above. 👍 I do notice that even though it’s not my natural inclination to do so, I rarely if ever regret “going ahead with it” and if done right, you do get the warm close fuzzy feelings. 😉 DH and I can start feeling “out of sync” if we go a long time without, even if it’s not intentional on our parts or part of some other kind of fight.

I mean, it’s called the “marital act” for a reason. It is a big part of marriage. It may have to be set aside sometimes for one reason or another, but normally speaking, it belongs there.

I think it’s interesting the points DaveBj brings up, but one thing I wonder about with the early Church fathers is if they were a little too dismissive of the body (this crops up time and again through Church history and there are even some popular heresies around it). Clearly the body matters - Christ had a body like us, the Sacraments are physical. Jesus enjoyed food and wine. I think a person can be temperate and chaste without being an ascetic.

I read the second article and frankly found it distasteful and rude to the original author. I don’t mind when authors disagree, but the tone was very unkind, which makes it hard for me to pick out the actual arguments and see if they’re worth anything. I don’t see how that kind of approach is beneficial for Catholics (or non-Catholics who might be interested in Catholic theology).

So interestingly enough, I find myself more in agreement with the first than I thought. Under normal circumstances, married people should be having sex and it should be good, and it does strengthen the bond and relationship between spouses, which will enable them to be better to each other, their children, and other people. That doesn’t seem controversial to me. 🤷
 
DaveBj said:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better definition/description of the unitive dimension of the “marital embrace.” 👍
Click to expand...
LOL… glad you wrote that… I was trying to figure out what she meant by the ‘martial debt.’ 😃
 
pensmama87 said:
snip

I think it’s interesting the points DaveBj brings up, but one thing I wonder about with the early Church fathers is if they were a little too dismissive of the body (this crops up time and again through Church history and there are even some popular heresies around it). Clearly the body matters - Christ had a body like us, the Sacraments are physical. Jesus enjoyed food and wine. I think a person can be temperate and chaste without being an ascetic.

snip
Click to expand...
It’s particularly interesting that when the subject of the physical body came up, the Fathers just about universally condemned the doctrine that the physicality of the body was something evil (contra the Gnostics and their ilk), but when it came to bodily enjoyment (laughter, good food, good wine, married couples having sex just for the enjoyment of having sex, etc.), they taught against it, as things to be avoided for the sake of some greater good. Hilaire Belloc’s little poem would have been very much out of place among them.
 
DaveBj said:
It’s particularly interesting that when the subject of the physical body came up, the Fathers just about universally condemned the doctrine that the physicality of the body was something evil (contra the Gnostics and their ilk), but when it came to bodily enjoyment (laughter, good food, good wine, married couples having sex just for the enjoyment of having sex, etc.), they taught against it, as things to be avoided for the sake of some greater good. Hilaire Belloc’s little poem would have been very much out of place among them.
Click to expand...
Right. It’s just curious to me. But I’ll admit I’m not very learned about these things, and I’m speaking based on impressions rather than intimate knowledge of their writings. :o
 
pensmama87 said:
I haven’t read Pezzulo’s piece yet, but I did read the other earlier in the week and to me it felt like putting the cart before the horse. (I think it’s a love language thing - my love “tank” gets filled up with other loving things which then inclines me more towards expressing that physically.)
Click to expand...
Wow, you sound like my wife–love languages and all! 🙂

Williams piece, while possible a tad overzealous, describes what I have tried to tell my wife for years. Her response was usually in the same vein as yours----“I’d be more interested if you would do x, y, and z.” While I would reply, I’d be much more inclined to do x, y, and z if our sex life wasn’t an afterthought." I’m sure there is a gender component at the root of the differences in perspectives.

Anyway, while he may go too far, there is much in there with which i agree and I will echo Blue Eyed Lady’s response.

I feel sorry for Mary Pezullo’s husband. 😃
 
Rico_S said:
Wow, you sound like my wife–love languages and all! 🙂

Williams piece, while possible a tad overzealous, describes what I have tried to tell my wife for years. Her response was usually in the same vein as yours----“I’d be more interested if you would do x, y, and z.” While I would reply, I’d be much more inclined to do x, y, and z if our sex life wasn’t an afterthought." I’m sure there is a gender component at the root of the differences in perspectives.

Anyway, while he may go too far, there is much in there with which i agree and I will echo Blue Eyed Lady’s response.

I feel sorry for Mary Pezullo’s husband. 😃
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Well, I’d say let’s not get personal, because that’s what I really disliked in her response. IMO we shouldn’t stoop to that level, though I can definitely understand desiring to do so. 😉

I agree about the gender differences (with the caveat of course that there are exceptions and so on.) Sometimes I wonder if that’s not on purpose a bit. Both spouses have to push themselves to sacrifice and love the other the way they need that isn’t what we would necessarily want first. It can be very bad when it’s one sided, but if both are continually making the effort, then both feel loved and so can be loving to each other and others. 👍

(Though it is hard when for whatever reason that chain is broken, and then it’s like playing a game with who will “give in” first. Not a fun game at all and I think best avoided.)
 
pensmama87 said:
:rotfl:

I agree about the gender differences (with the caveat of course that there are exceptions and so on.) Sometimes I wonder if that’s not on purpose a bit. Both spouses have to push themselves to sacrifice and love the other the way they need that isn’t what we would necessarily want first. It can be very bad when it’s one sided, but if both are continually making the effort, then both feel loved and so can be loving to each other and others. 👍
Click to expand...
100% agree. Our Lord ain’t no dummy. 🙂
 
Both here and in the rebuttal article, Ryan Williams is misquoted, much to his detriment. The title is “Sex is** kind of like** the nourishing food of marriage.” Pezzulo also misrepresented him by writing, “According to Mr. Williams, sex is the only nourishment by which a marriage is made strong.” Of course, Williams never said this. So I am wondering, did Pezzulo actually read the article she is panning, or is she lying about what Williams said to argue with him. If the latter, then it is hardly fair. It is what is known as a straw man.

I believe Ryan Williams had some valid points as to the benefits of sex, though I think he stretches the metaphor of food a little too much. Or maybe others are stretching it further than he intended. Also, I think the concept fails to account for the diversity in marriages. I think when he is much older, his perspective might change on this.
 
pnewton said:
Both here and in the rebuttal article, Ryan Williams is misquoted, much to his detriment. The title is “Sex is** kind of like** the nourishing food of marriage.” Pezzulo also misrepresented him by writing, “According to Mr. Williams, sex is the only nourishment by which a marriage is made strong.” Of course, Williams never said this. So I am wondering, did Pezzulo actually read the article she is panning, or is she lying about what Williams said to argue with him. If the latter, then it is hardly fair. It is what is known as a straw man.

I believe Ryan Williams had some valid points as to the benefits of sex, though I think he stretches the metaphor of food a little too much. Or maybe others are stretching it further than he intended. Also, I think the concept fails to account for the diversity in marriages. I think when he is much older, his perspective might change on this.
Click to expand...
That’s because Williams changed the title after the storm in a teacup erupted.

His original article (which I received a link to in my daily Aleteia newsletter on 8/12/16) was entitled “Sex Is The Nourishing Food Of Marriage.” :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top